Leaderboard

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." -- Groucho Marks I've been meaning to ask about your quotation marks. If they're set up that way for your native language, when you do "air quotes" with your hands, do you hold the right hand upside down?

Now imagine facebook has 2bln users posting cats and nonsense every day.

Congratulations science Forum on 1mil total posts. I know it doesent mean much for most but we should stop and appreciate for a moment what this forum brought to some of us. It links and connects each other allowing us to discuss interesting topics, get a peer review for any idea we might have and care to share or be corrected on a flawed understanding. If you are not fortunate enough to work in the specific field that you are interested in, it's hard to find people who you could discuss specific topics with. Thank you admins and members for this though-sharing platform that you shaped.

Sounds like part of you hasn't quite accepted he's gone yet.

If we describe all we observe as "nature", then god(s), beings who can't be seen/recorded/detected/interacted with in a meaningful way, are outside of that. A being that ignores natural laws is considered "super (above) natural". I don't support people making guesses about what form god(s) take and then claiming it's truth. I don't mind people practicing their faith, but I do wish they'd stop trying to make scientific-type claims of credibility. Faith is supposed to be about belief that doesn't need reason. The way you change definitions to suit your beliefs is pretty bad practice, but it's worse when you build your beliefs on bad assumptions like this one. Just because humans practice religion doesn't make it part of nature. It may seem "natural" to you because lots of people practice religion, but no other species does, and not all humans. And again, the focus of these religions, god(s), are unobservable by science, and therefore are unnatural, or supernatural. There is no evidence to support the existence of god(s). That's how science works, you look at the preponderance of evidence. And I don't know how many different ways to say it, but ALL GODS are unobservable. You can claim to observe something it's/they're responsible for, but every claim like that has a natural explanation that doesn't require god(s). Gods are supernatural, like unicorns, faeries, Santa Claus, and demons. They defy physics at will, they ignore natural limitations, and they've all chosen to be unobservable to science.

This is a science forum. Please provide evidence we did this today and not a few weeks/months ago. The peer review process by iNow has sparked this question, so you must now provide answers to prove your claim. (I'm kidding)

I feel like we did this a few years ago and suspect some posts are no longer being counted as a result of software upgrades and changes

Less than a nanoKelvin, in a Bose-Einstein condensate. Laser cooling can get you to a few microKelvin, which happens routinely in, say a rubidium fountain clock (to pick a random example)

Yeah, I'm not going down the same road for 'supernatural' that you led us all down for the word 'predetermined'.

Don’t take those symptoms lightly, you need to see a doctor as soon as possible.

Both seem inevitable to varying degrees. Some would choose against modified (or not be able to afford it) while others would develop biases for or against. Evolution doesn't seek an upward trend. It is directionless like water running downhill following the least path of resistance. Purposely forcing genetic change with the goal of making things more perfect is something which has never been done. It could work out great or it could end in calamity. It is only within the last couple decades we've have discovered billions of people have Neanderthal genes. We still have a lot to learn.

Yeah, I agree. Rangers comments seem... untethered to reality. The Comey situation is complex. The left is upset with him for making a colossal mistake that likely played a significant role in putting Trump in office under questionable circumstances. The right is upset with him because he has access to facts that may lead Trump to get removed from office and possibly convicted. One side is upset with actions he took. Another side is upset with actions he might one day take. One side is commenting on actions. Another side is preemptively attacking character and credibly (attack them precisely where they’re strongest!) to tribally protect one of “their own.” Not. At all. The same.

Well I'll just sit back and imagine some physics being applied lol. Seriously though much of that last post sounds like ramblings rather than physics. First goal understand how physics models spacetime in terms of the mathematics. Might just help explain what Hawkings meant by imaginary time. Granted it would help if you read the paper proposal https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.28.2960 "Wavefunction of the Universe" by Hartle and Hawking. Much clearer than the pop media blitz on it for one detail here is a specific quote. "The ground-state wave function in the simple minisuperspace model that we have considered with a conformally invariant field does not correspond to the quantum state of the Universe that we live in because the matter wave function does not oscillate. " In other words its what referred to as "Toy modelling" or a what if model.... PS this is part of Hawkings "No Boundary proposal"

Citation needed. Fortunately for you, the search and quote functions are super easy to use for this purpose.

Two Hondas wide and one Toyota deep. It fits 2 total, but just one Jeep

Agreed, nothing is the difference between an apple and a donut. (The existence of the hole to be precise) Yes please do, young Molesworth.

So am I and so do I "there's nothing noble about being superior to your fellow man. True Nobility lies in being superior to your formal self" - Earnest Hemmingway

I am sad about my relative simplicity, I would like to understand more... I learn with every moment, that makes me more. (or I like to think)

Science doesn’t really do “proof”. A theory can be an answer but not the answer. For example, we have two good, but completely different, theories of gravity. You use the best one for the job. Neither is “true”. Similarly, you can describe light as a wave or as a particle. Some things are easier with the first (refraction) some are better with the other (photoelectric effect).

From your source: as soon as the helicopter left the ground, the ground would ZOOM away at up to 1,675 kmh This is what is wrong. The helicopter is clearly leaving earth's frame of reference and yet this doesn't happen.That suggests to me that the Earth is not moving.

That is my point. The balls go up and down. That suggests the earth is stationary.

So why doesn't my golf shot go into space? If it has inertia in one direction surely it should keep travelling out of the atmosphere.

The problem with that is that it is a rotational movement. It is not linear, therefore we would expect to see anything in earth's atmosphere being ejected into space by the wind.

Please strange link me an experiment that expressly states we not only move in the universe but one that shows the 24 hour rotation around the sun. Ill save you some time, it does not exist.

This whole thing reminds me of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Just after the election people on this forum were slamming Comey for leaking things about Hilliary and her emails, blaming him for being one of the reasons Trump won, and going on and on about how he was partisanly motivated when he released the emails because he knew it would hurt Hillary. Now it appears he's an angel sent from God himself to fight the big orange monster in the white house.

If you assert with no evidence then I will dismiss with no evidence.

An eel

Okay please be fair. I was presented with two links on the first reply. I read both and responded. I was then presented with this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance which states that the laws of motion are the same in all inertial frames. Nothing to do with my argument. and then a list with no links: Sunrise and sunset? Coriolis force? Foucault's pendulum? The motion of the stars? The fact the Earth is an oblate spheroid? The Hafele-Keating experiment? Firstly, "The fact the Earth is an oblate spheroid" is not a fact I accept. The Hafele-Keating experiment was a test of relativity - nothing to do with my argument. Everything else on the list is in agreement with a non-rotational model.

This would be correct like this: We can change the future because we have free will and so the future is not determined. Everything what you can perceive is here. It IS predetermined. Reality is here. Maybe You are trolling

I suspect Newton would have agreed with me.

How could anything be outside Nature (if any God could exist)? Any of them could exist without space? Space is part of Nature. The image of God in humans mind evolves as one senses what is plausable eventually with technologically in our future. The wonderings will never give a perfect answer so they can not be evidence. You can not blame humans to think about it when it is in our culture (can the kid see something in tv without the intensive "promotion" of technology...) Science is a tool for Understanding Nature. Science has tools for measuring nature. Religion is part of Nature. Science has no tools (yet) to measure Religion related information. i.e: religions are not (yet) science. I wonder if we could meet God (any form of advanced intelligence) would that not falsify basically everything in the religions while would prove only one thing, the existence of higher intelligences. Would such senario change the perception of science for the masses looking for evidence about god in religions. Mixing religion with science is like to recognize that there is a informational connection between a stone age bow and the falcon heavy. Not to mention: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences Which does not really change the rate of analogy in my metaphore... Could you detail this thought? How could I imagine something outside nature? Do you have some evidence? 50 years ago we did not see planets around distant stars. Still that did not place plausable planets outside nature.

Lambda

You look it from the wrong point of view. More believer more support for research and task execution. Science has already a strong philosophy. So easy to understand. It would not be easy to corrupt it, specially if there are few billion interested eyes looking for clear information. To jump back to the original topic: Finally I understood The God of Science, The only supernatural state possible to exist, the source code of the Universe: The state of physically Nothing: 0 Task completed. Final question of life answered. Science and Religion lived happy ever after...

Perhaps. However, this statement might as well sum it up: 10 positive adjectives. I'd say that means liberals have a fairly high opinion of him, and not just his This isn't an attempt to blow off the discussion. I simply commented I distinctly remember when several members on this forum were accusing Comey of PURPOSEFULLY lying and plotting with Trump to undermine Hilliary. Call it hand-waiving(waving) and whataboutism. However, I am being honest. It is something I see and decided to comment on even though I knew you guys would deny it. If you step back with an objective view, surely you can see what I was saying. You(yes, you Phi. You've helped me widen my view several times, let me help you widen yours.) have seemingly gone from believing that Comey was plotting with Trump, to no longer even be able to recall a single instance of Comey having done something untruthful. Hence the statement "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." And I am willing to stand by this belief: The only reason Comey is not seen as a lying crook to you anymore is that he no longer supports Trump. I like Comey. I fully support the guy. I respect him 10x more then I will ever respect Trump. However, without a shadow of a doubt, I know the only reason that you guys have started respecting him as well is that he no longer supports Trump. I am one of them. IMO it has a lot to do with his politics as well.

When was space very hot and very dense? What is the science behind that explanation? The science is called sociology. The act of deeming acceptance to the higher iq individuals of the major nations to accept faith or religious views as general logic.

Or you can do it like China. If she's a girl, choose to abort her, if he's a boy, let him live. Wait. Wrong terminology. If IT is a female, choose to abort it. If IT is a male, let it live. Then we won't have those ethical concerns about being able to select the gender of a child through genetic engineering.